Trade and Conflict: Proximity, Country Size, and Measures

Omar M.G. Keshk, Rafael Reuveny and Brian M. Pollins
Additional contact information
Omar M.G. Keshk: The Ohio State University, USA
Rafael Reuveny: Indiana University, USA
Brian M. Pollins: The Ohio State University, USA

Conflict Management and Peace Science, 2010, vol. 27, issue 1, 3-27

Abstract: The effect of trade on military conflict is one of the most important questions in international relations. Liberals argue that trade brings peace, neo-realists and neo-Marxists reason that trade brings conflict, while classical realists contend that trade has no impact on conflict. This article investigates theoretically and empirically some of the most important issues that remain in this literature: the roles of geographical proximity, country size, the handling of the trade data, and the conceptualization of conflict. Employing a simultaneous equations model, we find that the claim that trade brings peace is not robust, but rather it is conflict that reduces trade.

Keywords: fatal disputes; liberal peace; militarized interstate disputes; missing trade data; realism; simultaneity; zero trade (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265659009352137 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:compsc:v:27:y:2010:i:1:p:3-27

DOI: 10.1177/0265659009352137

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Conflict Management and Peace Science from Peace Science Society (International)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().